How Many Retrials Does Samsung Want? Infinity Retrials.

We are just a few weeks away from the second major Apple v. Samsung trial to happen in Northern California, but we still haven't wrapped up the first one. Why does Samsung think it should get a re-trial of the last re-trial, and what does the judge think of all of this?

Apple vs. Samsung

Apple and Samsung have been the biggest adversaries in the ongoing Patent Wars, which must be at least a little awkward as they continue to do billions of dollars of business together. Although both companies have sparred with each other in various courtrooms around the world, so far the most important trial happened in Northern California, with Judge Lucy Koh presiding, in the summer of 2012.

You remember that one: Apple was awarded $1.1 billion, and then it looked like (to some) $402 million of that was being discounted, but then $290 million of that disputed amount was added back to the total amount. If you are keeping score at home, that brings the total amount Samsung owes Apple from the first trial to $929 million. Except Samsung strenuously objects to that restoration of $290 million, and is begging the court for a re-trial of that re-trial. Which totally makes sense if you love things that don't make sense.

I'll take Let's Have Another Retrial for $290 million, Alex.

Judge Koh, however, does not love things that don't make sense. Last friday, Samsung's request for a re-trial of the re-trial was thankfully denied.

Samsung's request was based on a few different arguments, including one theory that suggested Cupertino's legal team pandered to racial, ethnic, and/or national prejudices among jury members. Of particular note in Samsung's argument was the moment when Apple, while questioning a star witness for Samsung, attempted to challenge his credibility by suggesting that perhaps the truth was "lost in translation."

Judge Koh was not buying what Samsung was selling, however, and, as Florian Mueller put it in his highly respected blog, "Samsung's allegations were more than far-fetched and didn't impress Judge Koh."

Apple did, however, play a little loosely with the jury for Judge Koh's taste. There was a point in Apple's closing argument where it was suggested that it was the patriotic duty of the jury to find for Apple.

In speaking about the companies that used to manufacture television in the United States, Apple's lawyer stated, "They were well known and they were famous. They were creators. They were inventors. They were like the Apple and Google today. But they didn't protect their intellectual property. They couldn't protect their ideas. And you all know the result. There are no American television manufacturers today."

That type of play was "troubling" to Judge Koh, but not enough to warrant a re-trial of the re-trial.

However, Judge Koh was stern when pointing out that comments like that are what led to all of this time wasted on re-trials of re-trials, and that lawyers on both sides are "encouraged to be mindful of the important role that lawyers play in the actual and perceived fairness of [the U.S.] legal system as they prepare for and litigate the next round of this patent dispute."

And just think: just under eight weeks and we get to start the new super-trial between Apple and Samsung held in Northern California with Judge Koh presiding. Which will spawn its own brood of trials and re-trials.

This is getting to be like watching the movie Groundhog Day on endless repeat.